Uncategorized
Seeking latitude to press liberal causes, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs distances itself from federations
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the onetime standard-bearer for outreach to the non-Jewish world whose influence has waned, is loosening its financial and organizational ties to the Jewish Federations of North America in a bid to reassert its traditional role.
The decision announced Monday to go it alone, announced in a press release and a two-page brochure that will go out to Jewish organizations, will free the JCPA to pursue liberal agenda items that are favored by American Jews but can alienate or unsettle donors to the federation system who are more conservative or at least more cautious about maintaining an appearance of being nonpartisan.
The decision marks a resolution to tensions that surged in 2020, when JCPA was among 600 Jewish groups to sign onto a full-page New York Times ad declaring “Black Lives Matter.” That set off alarms among some conservative donors because of the anti-Israel positions adopted by some of the Black Lives Matter movement’s leading individuals and organizations.
As a result, JCPA and JFNA entered into talks about their shared future. Insiders said last year, as tensions burst into public view, that it was likely that the ailing JCPA would fold wholly into JFNA.
Instead, after a process that included officials from both groups as well as from local Jewish community relations councils, which are mostly controlled by their local Jewish federations, the decision was to tease apart the organizations. The decision means that JCPA will no longer officially speak on behalf of the community relations councils, and also will not draw dues from them or from the 16 national organizations that have funded it up to now.
But while the group will take on a fundraising challenge, those who engineered the new structure say it will also be insulated from the difficulties of arriving at a consensus in an increasingly polarized political environment.
Rabbi Doug Kahn, the retired longtime director of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council who was a consultant in the restructuring, said the new arrangement is meant to offer a positive answer to the question, “Can we move forward in a way that enables us to be more impactful on our core issues, and more nimble at the same time, while retaining close relationships with our key stakeholders going forward?”
Rori Pickler Neiss, who heads the St. Louis JCRC, was among a number of local community relations council directors who had lost hope that the JCPA could adequately represent them. Now she said, she was hopeful it could resume its role of convening a national Jewish consensus around critical issues.
“The model of consensus-building in the way that some of the mainstream organizations talk about it has really been consensus towards a very narrow group of voices that wants to claim representation of the entire Jewish community,” she said. The newly constituted JCPA “is opening itself up to what could be greater consensus in a sense of a much broader community than many of our models have allowed for.”
The brochure tied to the split indicates some of the issues on which the renewed JCPA will advocate. “JCPA will represent a strong independent voice within the American Jewish community on issues aimed at strengthening our democracy and commitment to an inclusive and just society out of the belief that such conditions are essential in a pluralistic society and for the well-being of the Jewish people and Israel,” it said. “The reset takes place against a backdrop of rising antisemitism, racism, bigotry and hate, and polarization, and continued threats to our democracy.”
The group is launching two new initiatives, both apparently likely to dismay conservatives. One would focus on “voting rights, election integrity, disinformation, extremism as a threat to democracy, and civics education.” The other would focus on “racial justice, criminal justice reform and gun violence, LGBTQ rights, immigration rights, reproductive rights, and fighting hate violence.”
Some of the 16 groups that have paid dues to the JCPA in the past are supporting the restructured group. The new JCPA will rely at first on a three-year commitment from the UJA Federation of New York, one of the biggest pillars of the JFNA.
It’s not clear yet how the more conservative among the 16 groups will react. Nathan Diament, the Washington director for the Orthodox Union, said his group would wait and see how the new JCPA develops. But he said he regretted the polarization that led to the change.
“The trajectory of that JCPA is a reflection of the of the broader trend, more than anything about the JCPA itself,” Diament said. “It’s harder to find consensus these days with regards to Israel, it’s harder to find consensus with regard to a large list of domestic policy matters. I mean, even while we were in the JCPA we were in the position of having to dissent on some prominent issues.”
David Bohm, the current JCPA chairman who led the restructuring talks, said the organization would remain nonpartisan — but acknowledged that it’s become harder to maintain the perception.
“In today’s polarized environment, people get accused of being partisan when they take a stand on any issue, so I don’t know if that can be totally avoided,” he said in an interview.
The JFNA in a statement welcomed the new configuration. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with JCPA — as we always have — as it tackles issues of importance to Jewish communities in its new format.”
In an interview, Elana Broitman, JFNA’s senior vice president for public affairs, said the new configuration would allow the JCPA to delve deeper on its favored issues. “If the JCPA is focused on particular issues, they can perhaps go into more depth on those issues that they had the opportunity to before,” she said.
In the past, the JCPA has taken positions on issues like voting rights, gun control, immigration rights and abortion, because they were favored by the local JCRCs with which it consulted and which sent delegates to its annual conference. Those JCRCs often initiated liberal policies, in part because they were favored by an American Jewish grassroots that polls show trends overwhelmingly liberal.
Another factor was the give and take in local community relations: Jewish groups seeking support for Jewish issues from Black, Latino, Asian American and other minority groups were happy to reciprocate on those groups’ favored issues.
But the JCPA’s profile on those issues has diminished in recent years; the smaller donor base triggered by the 2008 recession forced the vast majority of JCRCs to fold into their local federations, and to reflect the priorities of the federation donor base as opposed to the congregations, Jewish labor groups and fraternal organizations that once drove the agenda for Jewish community relations.
Tensions between the JCPA and the JFNA intensified in the summer of 2020, after a Minneapolis policeman murdered George Floyd, triggering civil rights protests and the “Black Lives Matter” ad by Jewish groups that JCPA signed onto.
The JFNA CEO, Eric Fingerhut, insiders said then, was not happy about having to explain to donors why JCPA was embracing a group identified closely with a movement perceived by some conservatives as radical and anti-Israel.
The new JCPA is betting that there are donors ready to support a progressive domestic Jewish lobby. In addition to the three-year grant from UJA-Federation, two other grants will come from a past chairwoman of the JCPA, Lois Frank, and its current chairman, Bohm.
Bohm, an attorney who assumed leadership of the JCPA in 2021, said the group would take a hit by losing the JFNA’s allocations and the dues it collects from the 125 community relations councils — but he expected to make it up with money from foundations invested in the the JCPA’s new agenda, including from individual federations.
“We expect we may lose some funding,” he said. “We’re hoping it’s not significant.”
“We are beginning to hear from foundations that have not historically necessarily focused on community relations, but now recognize why that is such an important part in the toolkit,” Kahn added.
Bohm said the board would be independent and limited to 30 people. “We will continue to have board members who are either JCRC directors or current or past chairs of JCRCs, but they will not be representing their specific community,” he said in an email after the interview. “Instead they will represent the Jewish community relations field as a whole.”
JCPA’s annual budget is now less than $2 million, Kahn said, down from nearly $4 million in 2015, and its staff has dropped from 13 in the 2000s to four. The group is seeking a fifth staffer now and hope eventually to employ at least 13.
Beyond polarization, a number of factors have been at play in diminishing the role of consensus-based Jewish community relations. There has been a flourishing of single-issue nonprofit groups, many of them Jewish, that are more attractive to donors than general interest groups.
Kahn noted that in the mid-1990s when many of the agenda items the national Jewish community pursued for decades seemed to be resolving themselves: Peace was breaking out between Israel and its neighbors, the Soviet Union collapsed and freed its Jews to travel, immigration reform was on track and race relations appeared to be improving.
“There was this shift from focusing on the external challenges or threats to more of the internal threats within the Jewish community,” he said, referring to an emphasis on Jewish education to counter assimilation.
The fragility of the hopes for peace and democratic growth in the 1990s were made evident in subsequent years with the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the eruption of the Second Intifada and the rise of nativist sentiment and its attendant bigotries, culminating in the Trump presidency.
Kahn said his hope was that the JCPA would once again assume the role it played from 1944, when it was founded as the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council: raising Holocaust awareness and taking the lead in promoting immigration in the late 1940s, establishing the Black-Jewish alliance in the 1950s, defending Israel in the 1960s, and advocating for Soviet Jewry until the USSR’s collapse.
He saw hope in the turnout of non-Jewish support for Jews after the recent deadly attacks on Jewish institutions, including the gunman who massacred 11 worshipers in Pittsburgh in 2018. “I think this model will enable that kind of solidarity-building around issues of common cause to grow infinitely greater than it’s been able to, up until now,” he said.
—
The post Seeking latitude to press liberal causes, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs distances itself from federations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Al Jazeera Forum Platforms Terrorist Leaders and Their Sympathizers
The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon
At the 17th annual Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, Qatar, familiar faces took the stage to discuss the aftermath of October 7 and its broader regional and global implications. These figures are familiar not for their credibility, but because the lineup included terrorist leaders and their sympathizers.
Upon entrance to the forum, an “in memoriam” lined the halls filled with faces of Al Jazeera journalists who died during the Israel-Hamas war.
Eitan Fischberger, who first exposed the terror-filled line up of speakers at the conference, found that five of these so-called journalists are also familiar faces. These “journalists” didn’t become well-known for trustworthy and accurate reporting, but rather because all five of them had well-established ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Five. The answer is five Al Jazeera terrorists
https://t.co/2MjtM3MW9V pic.twitter.com/PQzULPF5zF
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) February 6, 2026
Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were two of the biggest attractions at the event. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, sanctioned by the US for her pro-terror rhetoric, also took part in a session via video call.
Despite the mass slaughter of Iranian civilians, the focus of every speaker at the conference was laser-focused on Israel. This was not accidental. After all, Abbas Araghchi, who, given his position in the Iranian regime, has stood by as thousands of Iranian citizens were murdered, was given a spotlight.
From that platform, Araghchi blamed Israel for regional instability, saying that “Israel’s expansionist project requires that neighboring countries be weakened” and amounts to the “enforcement of permanent inequality.”
For this, he called for Israel to be “punished.” The irony would be laughable if it weren’t so grotesque. A senior official of a regime that jails dissidents, executes protesters, and bankrolls terrorist proxies across the region stood before an audience and positioned himself as a moral authority on justice and stability.
Iran’s FM Abbas Araghchi slammed the double standard allowing Israel to expand its military while others in the region are asked to reduce their defensive capabilities.
Araghchi spoke at the Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, an event focusing on geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/sRQ8khI5D4
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 7, 2026
Predictably, in Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal’s session, he similarly dodged any blame for the ensuing war. What he did was suggest that “the flood” — the operation name chosen for the October 7 massacre — successfully brought the Palestinian cause back to global consciousness. He specifically praised the outrage seen on university campuses and across social media, treating international unrest as a strategic victory.
Naturally, as a terrorist leader, Meshaal deflected the requirement for Hamas to disarm, saying “criminalizing the resistance” is not something it can accept. As long as Israel exists, Hamas will not disarm.
It is the most recent example of Hamas leaders being explicit in their absolute unwillingness to adhere to the ceasefire agreement to which they signed.
Beyond actual terrorists, terrorist sympathizer Francesca Albanese was invited to speak, joining a session abroad via video. Unsurprisingly, her words echoed those of the terrorist leaders listed above, as she spoke of Israel as the “common enemy” of the world.
It is dangerous enough that a UN Rapporteur shared a platform at the same conference as terrorists. That her language is barely distinguishable from that of designated terrorists should probably come as little surprise given Albanese’s previous actions.
Humanity has a “common enemy” in Israel, Francesca Albanese tells Qatar’s Al Jazeera forum pic.twitter.com/l1wXNiS7yP
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) February 8, 2026
Mustafa Barghouti, who has similarly expressed support for Palestinian terrorism in the past, discussed how the Palestinian will could not be broken, and how the fact that people stayed in Gaza throughout the war displayed the “failure of Israel” despite the “genocide.” In reality, this only goes to show that Palestinian civilians were never the target of Israel, which fought tirelessly to root out Hamas and other terrorists, while doing its utmost to avoid harming civilians.
Mustafa Barghouti, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, said that the steadfastness of Palestinians in Gaza despite genocide, shows ‘the failure of Israel’.
Barghouti is at the Al Jazeera Forum, an event focusing on geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/X9Fjex3kWc
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 7, 2026
Al Jazeera’s support for terrorism is not new. What makes this moment particularly alarming is the scale of its influence on the world, and how it brings terrorists and their sympathizers onto a stage in light of global events. This was not a conference about the future of the Middle East. It was an echo chamber where terrorism got the platform.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Erdogan’s Atomic Ambition: Why Turkey Is the Middle East’s Next Proliferation Crisis
Riot police walk outside the Istanbul provincial office of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), as CHP supporters gather near the office, after a recent court ruling that ousted the CHP’s Istanbul provincial leadership, in Istanbul, Turkey, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dilara Acikgoz
As the global community remains transfixed by the diplomatic theater in Oman, a more ominous atomic shadow is lengthening across the Eastern Mediterranean.
While Western envoys chase a “nuclear framework” with a defiant Iran, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is quietly executing a multi-decade roadmap to transform Turkey into the region’s next nuclear-threshold state.
We are witnessing the birth of a sophisticated, NATO-embedded “Iran 2.0” — yet the international community continues to treat Ankara as a standard ally rather than the primary proliferation risk it has become.
Unit 1 of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant stands at 99 percent completion. While marketed as a civilian energy panacea, Akkuyu represents a strategic Trojan Horse of unprecedented proportions. It is the world’s first “Build-Own-Operate” nuclear project, entirely financed and controlled by Russia’s Rosatom. This arrangement has not only granted the Kremlin a permanent nuclear anchor on NATO’s southern flank, but has also provided the Turkish state with the technical laboratory necessary to master the full nuclear fuel cycle under the guise of commercial cooperation.
The most alarming development in Turkey’s nuclear trajectory is not found in its power reactors, but in its naval shipyards. By officially prioritizing the “NUKDEN” initiative — Turkey’s nuclear-powered submarine program — Erdogan has discovered the ultimate legal loophole for domestic uranium enrichment. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “peaceful” enrichment remains a contentious grey area, but the production of highly enriched uranium for naval propulsion is a recognized military necessity that bypasses many traditional civilian safeguards.
By pursuing a nuclear navy, Ankara is signaling its intent to stockpile the very fissile material required for a warhead, all while maintaining a veneer of maritime sovereignty. This is a tactical evolution of the “Iran Model.” Where Tehran chose a path of open defiance, Ankara is choosing a path of “Legalist Proliferation,” using its status as a naval power to justify a fuel cycle that would otherwise trigger immediate international sanctions.
This “Stealth Proliferation” is backed by a massive, nine-billion-dollar cash injection from Moscow, ensuring that the infrastructure for this “naval requirement” is built with the highest Russian expertise.
A nuclear reactor is merely a forge; its true threat is realized only when paired with a delivery system. In June 2025, Erdogan issued a decree to massively expand Turkey’s production of medium- and long-range missiles. This was not a random military upgrade. When paired with the 2026 commissioning of Akkuyu, the picture becomes clear: Turkey is building the two halves of a nuclear deterrent in parallel.
The “Araghchi Doctrine” currently being debated in Doha — Iran’s refusal to negotiate on its own missile program — finds a mirror image in Ankara’s “National Missile Program.” Erdogan has been vocal in his disdain for the “nuclear OPEC,” arguing that it is unfair for some nations to possess nuclear-tipped missiles while others are barred from the club. By developing indigenous missile technology capable of reaching any capital in the Middle East or Europe, Turkey is ensuring that once its “breakout” occurs, the delivery mechanism will already be in place, tested, and ready.
For too long, Turkey has been granted what can only be described as a “NATO Pass.” Washington has consistently hesitated to enforce the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act with the necessary vigor, fearing the loss of the Incirlik airbase or a total rupture in the alliance. This hesitation has been read in Ankara as a green light. Erdogan views the international order not as a set of rules to follow, but as a set of constraints to be dismantled.
The strategic reality is that Turkey is no longer content to sit under the American nuclear umbrella. It seeks to build its own, potentially in a trilateral partnership with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This “Islamic Nuclear Axis” would combine Turkish high-tech delivery systems, Saudi capital, and Pakistani technical blueprints to create a new center of gravity that is entirely independent of Western control.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
Uncategorized
Map of Israeli targets goes up in Tehran as tensions simmer ahead of Netanyahu’s White House visit
(JTA) — Iran has erected a map showing Israeli targets for potential strikes in a prominent propaganda spot as another week dawns with uncertainty over whether it will face a U.S. attack.
The map went up over the weekend in Tehran’s Palestine Square, a frequent site for billboards meant to broadcast the Islamic Republic’s bravado when it comes to Israel and the United States. It includes the words “You start, we finish!”
It comes as President Donald Trump continues to weigh military intervention against Iran and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to visit the White House to press for his demands in Trump’s negotiations with Iran.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with US President Donald Trump this Wednesday in Washington, and will discuss with him the negotiations with Iran,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Saturday. “The Prime Minister believes any negotiations must include limitations on ballistic missiles and a halting of the support for the Iranian axis.”
A will-he-or-won’t-he air has pervaded for weeks as Trump has considered different strategies for dealing with Iran, which has said it would view both U.S. and Israeli targets as legitimate if the United States strikes to curb its nuclear ambitions, less than a year after the last U.S. attack on Iranian sites, which came during a war between Iran and Israel.
On Friday, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East advisor, and Steve Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, met directly with Iran’s foreign minister in Oman. The foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, said the talks had gotten off to a “good start” but that Iran was willing to negotiate only about the nuclear program, not the missiles that concern Israel.
Trump, too, told reporters that there had been “very good talks” that indicated that Iran was prepared to make more concessions than it had offered in the past. Still, he said, “They know that if they don’t make a deal the consequences are very steep.”
The next day, Kushner and Witkoff also visited a U.S. naval carrier that has been moved to the region as part of what Trump has called an “armada” that would enable U.S. military action in the event that Trump decides it is needed. Netanyahu has moved up his planned White House visit — which will be his fourth since Trump retook office last year — to advocate for Israel’s interests in the negotiations. It was at a previous visit, last April, that Trump disclosed for the first time that the United States had opened direct talks with Iran. Just over two months later, Trump joined Israel’s campaign against Iran with a bombing attack that came a day after he said he had not decided whether to strike.
The post Map of Israeli targets goes up in Tehran as tensions simmer ahead of Netanyahu’s White House visit appeared first on The Forward.